Pharmaceutical product liability cases often involve complex medical and scientific issues, requiring expert testimony to explain intricate details about drug development, clinical trials, regulatory compliance, and adverse side effects. The expert witness’s role is crucial in translating these complex concepts into clear, understandable terms for judges, juries, and lawyers. A well-chosen expert can strengthen the case by providing credible, scientifically sound testimony, while an inadequately vetted expert can derail a claim.
This article explores the essential steps to selecting the right pharmaceutical expert witness and examines what can go wrong when the wrong expert is chosen. With ExpertConnect Litigation Support guiding firms through this challenging process, law firms can avoid the pitfalls of expert selection and build stronger cases.
Choosing the right expert witness for pharmaceutical product liability cases is critical to success. Experts must not only possess deep scientific and regulatory knowledge but also the ability to present complex issues clearly and credibly in court.
Learn how ExpertConnect Litigation Support helps law firms connect with vetted experts to streamline the selection process and avoid common pitfalls.
Case Study: The Consequences of Selecting the Wrong Expert Witness
Case: Johnson v. Pharmaceutical Company (2011)
Background:
This case involved allegations against a major pharmaceutical company, claiming that one of its drugs caused severe adverse effects. The plaintiff argued that the drug led to a rare medical condition after prolonged use.
Expert Witness Issue:
The plaintiff’s legal team selected a medical expert with general experience in internal medicine to testify about the causal relationship between the drug and the alleged side effects. However, the expert lacked specialized expertise in the specific condition and had limited knowledge of the drug’s class and associated risks.
The Problem:
Several issues emerged with the expert’s testimony, which ultimately weakened the plaintiff’s case:
Lack of Specific Expertise: While the expert witness had general medical knowledge, they did not specialize in the specific area of pharmacology or drug safety required for the case.
Outdated Knowledge: During cross-examination, it became clear that the expert was not up-to-date on recent research or FDA guidance regarding the drug in question.
Overreaching in Conclusions: The expert made bold causal claims that went beyond what was supported by the scientific literature, exposing vulnerabilities in the testimony.
Potential Bias: The expert had a history of exclusively testifying for plaintiffs in similar cases, raising concerns about bias, which opposing counsel exploited during cross-examination.
Inconsistent Testimony: Under questioning, the expert gave inconsistent explanations regarding how the drug allegedly caused the condition, further undermining credibility.
Outcome:
The court found the expert’s testimony unreliable and excluded key portions under the Daubert standard, which assesses the relevance and reliability of expert testimony. With critical portions of the expert’s analysis dismissed the plaintiff’s case faltered. The court ultimately ruled in favor of the pharmaceutical company, leading to the dismissal of the claims.
Key Lessons from the Case
This case underscores the importance of careful expert witness selection in pharmaceutical product liability cases. Key lessons include:
Specific Expertise is Critical: An expert witness must possess specialized knowledge relevant to the drug, medical condition, or regulatory issues at hand.
Updated Knowledge Matters: Experts need to be familiar with the latest research, clinical trials, and regulatory developments.
Credibility Under Cross-Examination: Experts should avoid making claims that cannot be supported by scientific evidence to maintain credibility.
Bias and Objectivity: A history of exclusively testifying for one side can raise doubts about the expert’s neutrality and effectiveness.
Consistency is Essential: Inconsistent testimony can undermine the expert’s credibility and damage the case.
The Role of ExpertConnect Litigation Support in Avoiding These Pitfalls
The selection of a pharmaceutical expert witness is complex and time-sensitive. ExpertConnect Litigation Support simplifies this process by providing law firms with access to a network of pre-screened, vetted experts.
By ensuring that experts have the right qualifications, experience, and credibility, ExpertConnect helps law firms avoid common mistakes in expert selection.
Steps to Selecting the Right Pharmaceutical Expert Witness
Identify the Specific Expertise Required
Pharmaceutical product liability cases may require multiple experts to address different aspects of the case, such as pharmacology, toxicology, and regulatory compliance. Identifying the precise expertise needed is the first step.
Research Potential Experts
Leverage professional networks, academic publications, and expert witness services like ExpertConnect to identify candidates with relevant experience. Using a comprehensive network expands the search and ensures access to highly qualified professionals.
Evaluate Credentials and Experience
The expert’s educational background, clinical experience, and prior testimony must align with the specific issues in the case. Evaluating these credentials thoroughly can help avoid relying on unqualified experts.
Screen for Conflicts of Interest
Ensuring that the expert has no conflicts of interest or prior associations with the opposing party is critical to maintaining credibility.
ExpertConnect’s pre-screening process helps mitigate this risk by identifying potential conflicts early in the selection process.
Assess Communication Skills
An expert must be able to explain complex scientific concepts in a way that judges and juries can understand. Conducting mock trials or interviews can help evaluate the expert’s ability to communicate effectively.
Verify Availability and Alignment with Case Timelines
Pharmaceutical litigation often spans several years, requiring experts who can commit to the case’s timeline. Law firms should confirm the expert’s availability for depositions, trial preparation, and court appearances to avoid delays.
Challenges in Selecting Pharmaceutical Expert Witnesses
Time Constraints
Pharmaceutical product liability cases often involve tight deadlines, making it difficult to find the right expert quickly. ExpertConnect’s network provides quick access to pre-screened experts, ensuring law firms meet critical deadlines.
Limited Pool of Qualified Experts
In specialized areas of pharmaceutical litigation, the number of qualified experts may be limited.
ExpertConnect helps overcome this challenge by expanding the search beyond local markets, providing access to a global network of professionals.
Ensuring Relevance and Admissibility
Expert testimony must meet the legal standards for relevance and admissibility. Experts provided by ExpertConnect are selected for their ability to apply scientifically valid methodologies that align with legal standards, reducing the risk of exclusion.
Summary: Strengthening Your Case with the Right Pharmaceutical Expert Witness
Choosing the right expert witness is essential for success in pharmaceutical product liability cases. The expert must possess deep scientific expertise, communicate effectively, and meet strict admissibility standards. With the challenges of limited time, a small pool of experts, and complex admissibility rules, law firms need a structured approach to expert witness selection.
ExpertConnect Litigation Support offers a streamlined solution by providing access to a network of pre-screened, vetted experts with relevant experience in pharmaceutical litigation.
By utilizing these resources, law firms can avoid the pitfalls that come with selecting the wrong expert and ensure their case is backed by credible, persuasive testimony.
Visit ExpertConnect’s website to explore their directory of pharmaceutical experts and simplify your search for the ideal expert witness for your next product liability case.